prison to want change to provide a reachable opportunity. it is 100% possible to get clean and i want everyone to know it is possible to share the hope that a successful life is achievable. i have a huge passion to change things and to help that change. i have sent letters, e-mails, web messages to all the congressmen, judges, prosecutors, city of mason, mason police department and warren county. i am doing whatever part i can. this is killing so many young lives and mothers, fathers, daughters and sons, everyone, and they need to change. this is a letter -- and i want to answer this by saying that we are trying. i have a piece of legislation that i have drafted, and this piece of legislation is going to have permanent funding that will go directly to treatment centers, directly 100% to treatment centers around this country, and what it does, it asks to be charged one penny per milligram, one penny per milligram for every opiate produced and sold in america. that will half about

$1.5 billion to $2 billion. so i would ask all of my colleagues and friends who are afraid, oh, this is a new tax, this is a treatment center. this is a way to get people clean again, and this is what we are asking people to sign onto. i will guarantee you there won't be one family, democrat or republican, that would vote against you if you can help save their child and a place for them to go to get clean. this is so important. i want to thank you, mr. president, for allowing me to speak today and taking the time to read this letter and allowing us to share this letter with so many people because it is personal. you can now put a face, you can put a story, you can put a family behind it, and that's what we all should be doing. it's no longer a silent killer. it's still a killer. people are speaking out. they are asking for help. that help comes from right here in the halls of the senate and the halls of the congress. we can make a difference in america and save a whole generation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: wowblght. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 559, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 559, designating the week of september 12, 2016, as national direct support professionals recognition week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3326, a bill to give states the authority to provide temporary access to affordable private health insurance options outside of obamacare exchanges. mr. mcconnell: i fa ask for its second reading and mured to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: i ask -- the presiding officer: the bill will be read for the second tile time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the appointment at the desk appear separately as if made by the chair. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, september 15. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that the following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 2848

as amended postcloture. further,, that the time following leader remarks until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time with respect to s. 2848 as amended expire at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is to further business to to come e before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

the committee chair, from utah and a democrat from arizona.

watch c-span's "washington journal" live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern thursday morning. james talks about his book john quincy adams, about the life of the sixth president of the united states and his career after the presidency in the u.s. house of representatives. >> the thing that strikes you, he's a politician, he's held elected office, he's done whatever you do, but he didn't form alliances, he didn't do anything that you would do in order to be able to persuade people who otherwise might not go along with your agenda to do so. his four years in the white house, everything was hard, he achieved almost nothing.

sunday night 8:00 eastern on c-span q&a. >> joining us on the phone is the deputy editor for breaking news. his work is available online and you have had a busy day. >> it has been a busy couple of days and increasingly every single day with the election approaching. >> let's talk of some of the stories you've talk and so far today. hillary clinton is back on the campaign trail tomorrow. she will in north carolina and here in washington d.c. for a couple days. a number of events we we will be covering. what can we expect? >> i think what is most important for hillary clinton is that she gets out on the trail and shows that she's healthy, she is able to be transparent about what happened to discuss her plan to improve the lives of americans and defeat donald

trump and why donald trump is the wrong choice. i think her campaign feels that a return to normal would do her well and would hopefully improve what we have seen her sustain in recent polls. >> also the clinton campaign is looking ahead to next week when they will be in new york marking the start of the general assembly. they marked a number of meetings including with the egyptian president, the ukrainian president and getting a quick response from the trump campaign today. >> yes, that was announced earlier today that she will be meeting with the president of egypt and ukraine and possibly others. that would be happening next week on the sideline of the un general assembly. that is all sort of to potentially give the former secretary of state more credibility going forward,

showing that she is already speaking with these dignitaries and she has already been reminding voters that she has the experience of doing so. on the other hand it carries the consequence of the trump campaign being able to, as they've done today, point out that it's another reminder of her failed leadership and experience as secretary of state, as they characterize it. she is counting on more people to see that experience aspect rather than remember exactly every single detail about her legacy as secretary of state. >> a specific example by the trump campaign with hillary

clinton's reset calling it a failed reset with russia. this isn't a category i ever thought i would say, dr. oz and a presidential candidate in the same sentence but we are talking about his syndicated program today and donald trump who is in new york taping the program that will air tomorrow. what did he the lease and what did he tell doctor oz? >> it's unclear what he told him but what we reported on and my colleague who spoke to a couple people who are at the taping was that he talked about his weight, how he would like to lose some pounds, he is 6-foot three and 236 pounds, other people said his weight was 267. either way his bmi would be almost obese at 236 and obese at 267. obviously for somebody who is 67 years old it might not be the most reliable indicator of health. he also said other things according to his report where he would talk about his main exercise is moving his hands

while he is speaking. he didn't seem to say that he had the greatest diet. he said he liked eating fast food because at least he knows what's in it. >> initially there were reports that he was going to release detailed information about his health record. >> clearly that's not the case based on your reporting. >> that would not be, it still could be the case that they are going to be putting out some form of health records, but it's almost as though expectations became overblown when it was initially reported that he would be appearing on the doctor oz show. he said he would be asking him a series of pointed questions while also saying he would ask donald trump anything he didn't want to answer.

it turned out that donald trump did give him a couple pieces of information with his medical information. it's unclear everything they talked about, we will have to see how that books on the show tomorrow from the taping today. it is clear that the trump campaign has been saying for days that they are going to be putting out more detailed medical information, whether it's a few pieces of paper he had in his hand for doctor oz, whether that will satisfy the people and the media based on the fact that people want more permission from hillary clinton's campaign. hillary clinton's campaign is saying they will provide it in a couple days, particularly after the events this weekend. >> let me ask you about eric schneiderman denying that his investigation into the donald j trump foundation is politically motivated but the trump campaign is saying he is a hillary clinton supporter and this is coming eight weeks before the election. where does all that stand?

>> it's possible that they already are calling it a political hit job or something to the effect, basically saying that donald trump, this investigation says that donald trump and the foundation did not act in good faith essentially with their donation, he paid the fine for it but basically this is a sort of tip for tat political move that the clinton campaign and trump campaign can fight over. in the end it minimizes the significance of concerns of both campaigns because they are looking at individual contributions, they are not looking at apples to apples. they're looking at apples and oranges is the argument against this investigation. >> nick we will let you get back to work but thank you very much for your time.

it has been a very busy day. >> thank you. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we are going to get done, big things. that's who we are as americans. >> we will have one great american future. our potential is unlimited. >> ahead, live coverage coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. monday september september 26 is the first debate live in hempstead new york. then on october 4, vice president candidate mike pence and tim kaine debate in virginia. on sunday, october 9, washington university in st. louis host the second presidential debate. leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump, taking

place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch live or anytime on demand at cspan.org. >> now today's white house briefing with josh earnest. he talked about president obama's meeting with burma's state counselor, counselor, the syrian refugee crisis and increasing aid to israel. here is the briefing. [inaudible conversation] good afternoon everybody i do not have any announcements at the top. kevin we can go straight to your questions. >> the meeting about sanctions on burma, is the administration

taking methods to improve provisions for the muslim community. [inaudible] >> more deeply the united states engages in a country like burma, the more success we can have in encouraging them to pursue reforms. that's been documented with burma over the seven 1/2 years of his presidency. you will recall will recall when president obama took office, the leader of burma was a prisoner in her own house. i think the progress has been made in that country and it's been remarkable. as the united states has pursued a policy of deepening in our engagement in burma, critics all along have suggested that

there's a risk associated with that kind of engagement. in some ways, it was too soon for the united states to be pursuing that kind of engagement. this was a criticism we heard from some when the obama administration decided to put a point and ambassador to burma. people suggested that was rewarding bad behalf behavior. this was criticism we heard in advance of his first trip to, suggesting that it was too soon for the president to be visiting burma. i think we found that each stage, by deeply engaging with burma, we have been able to influence and encourage greater reforms that are consistent with our own national interest and consistent with our own values and of course there's more work that needs to be done. the president and burma leader both acknowledged that in the

oval office. we have been pleased with the progress we have seen in addressing the human rights concern and we welcomed her inclusion in those efforts, providing that kind of international input on the process can give the international community greater confidence that the government in burma is taking those reforms seriously and that's a good thing. >> the california congressional bill is calling for a waiver that would allow undocumented immigrants to purchase unsubsidized health insurance through covered california medicaid program. is that a costly administration

is supportive of? >> i have to acknowledge i have not seen the letter you are referring to some not sure i can respond to their specific request. as you know, i guess guess this is evident from their letter, the way the affordable care act is currently written, individuals who are undocumented immigrants are not eligible to collect benefits associated with the affordable care act. i know that has been the subject of some fear mongering or outright lying. >> they are stressing the word unsubsidized. >> i just haven't seen the letter so i'm not in a position to respond to it. i will see if i can get a copy of that.

>> they had a meeting saying he was somewhat appalled appalled to her reaction about human rights violations in that country. i was wondering, during the president's conversation, did he have any response were what was said about it and did he come away with a similar feeling about her reaction to his concerns about human rights? >> it wasn't made clear in the meeting. it's important for the burmese government to uphold human rights of all religious and ethnic groups inside burma. we have seen, since he assumed office a greater commitment to the pursuit of reform that protect human rights.

there has been a greater effort to recognize the citizenship or the rights of the citizens burma in the united states and there has been inclusion in that process which is something we welcome and there's certainly more work that needs to be done and there needs to be commitment to the reform and that reflects the priority that the united states places on universal human rights and making sure they are protected by governments all around the world. i think all of you had a chance to hear directly from her in the oval office indicate that she intended to make that a priority and we certainly would welcome those kinds of comments because there's a lot of important work that remains to be done. >> on the dakota pipeline there was a protest outside the white

house today and protest around the country. is the president following these protests at all? has there been any response to stop the core for issuing a permit for that pipeline? does the administration support that move? >> i do not know that the president was aware of the protest yesterday because he was on the road most of the day. i don't even know if he was here when the protest was organized. i think i can say in general that the policy speaks for itself which is that despite winning an order from a judge who indicated that the process had been properly followed and that the or army corps of engineers could move forward with the project, the army corps

stated they will voluntarily pause the project to ensure that the consideration of everyone's views and perspectives, particularly those most directly affected by the project are carefully and properly considered. so that would be the next step in the process and the president believes that an appropriate course of action. in this case we're talking about individuals who are native americans. there is a rather sad chapter in our history with regard to the federal government not effectively looking out for the concerns of native populations in this country, and that has left a legacy and it is one this administration is committed to

address and it's making sure that the process that is in place has adequately considered the impact it will have on everybody who lives in the area. >> i think that could be an simplification of the subject. the issues related to the construction of that pipeline are somewhat different. >> in this case, the army corps has voluntarily indicated they will pause this project to

ensure that in the context of this project the concern of everyone being affected were taken into account. days also indicated a willingness to go back and make sure that all infrastructure projects that they're involved in adequately consider the views and rights of effective population. >> in the past 24 hours we have seen information,. [inaudible] what is the president considering or what recourse did the president have? i was lapsing the reports of the

variety of cyber intrusions and leaks that have emerged in the last 24 hours or so. the united states has not made a formal determination in public about who may or may not be responsible for those kinds of incidents. i know you asked about it in the context of the election, i'm not sure the reprehensible relief of the health information of the u.s. employment olympians has anything to do with the olympians. it may have to do with some other things that have been well documented for what i can say in general is that all of this serves as an illustration of how it's important for us to make

this a top priority and unfortunately the congress has failed to do that. in his fiscal year 2017 budget, a significant increase in funding for cyber security that would not just enhance our cyber capabilities but also improve our ability to work more effectively to investigate cyber intrusions when they occur and work with the private sector to deter others. have as we've discussed they refused to even have a hearing on that budget and republicans have that essentially said they're refusing to talk about that proposal to enhance our cyber security. that's unfortunate. that's an indication that republicans are failing to even discuss what should be a top

national security priority, particularly given the widespread reports and the conclusion reached by some professionals outside the government that russia is likely responsible, that certainly feels like something that should get the attention of republicans in congress. unfortunately it has not. the good news however is that this administration has not just relied on congress to take steps to try to protect the american people from cyber security. over the last few years we have seen the president convene a summit bringing together technology experts and leaders in the private sector and national security figures to discuss what can be done to

discuss our nation's national security pretty set of executive order designating new authority to the treasury that would allow him to impose financial sections on countries or individuals that are suspected of involvement with cyber intrusion. that is new authority gives the united states government additional options when it comes to responding to these kinds of situations. the president has prioritized in his multilateral meetings including most recently at the g 20, the effort to establish internationally accepted norms in cyberspace. we have gotten additional commitment from the chinese with regard to some of those international norms. that affects the security of the united states. so the time has come for republicans in congress to do their part and we would like to see them do more. i think the last thing that i will note here is that over the weekends, the cia director was asked about this and he noted that russia, and this is a

quote, that has sophisticated abilities in collection and other things they want to do in cyber. we have it on this for quite a while. i think this is an indication that the president and his team are not just keenly aware of the situation but have taken aggressive steps to try to counter it and we would welcome our republicans in congress doing their part for a change. >> on syria, there's a significant difference of opinion between sec. carrie and the secretary of defense about partnering with russia. is the president concerned about implementing or developing this not next face, whatever that might be, because of this disagreement. >> let's start by saying the f in your question is a sizable

one. there remain there remain significant doubt inside the administration and around the world about the capacity and willingness of the russians to fulfill the responsibilities they have are accepted in this arrangement. that skepticism is not just well-documented but i think entirely reasonable given the way we have seen the russians and the asad regime behave over the course of the past year or two. that's a big f and i feel like that's an appropriate place to start. from there, the president and secretary of state have both spoken publicly about how deeply concerns the united states is about the humanitarian situation inside syria. our effort to engage diplomatically with the russians

is in the knowledge that the russians have more influence over the asad regime than anybody else and the asad regime has been the chief impediment of delivering humanitarian aid to hundreds and thousands if not millions of civilians who have been caught in the crossfire in syria including in places like aleppo. this has been the best opportunity that the united states has to try to reduce the violence and allow for the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. that's what we have been trying, that's the result we have been trying to bring about. when the president discusses complicated issues like syria with members of his national security team, he is not looking for a bunch of people that have exactly the same opinion. the president is not looking for

a group of people to sit around the table with him in the situation room who all nod their head every time he speaks. what the president is looking for are informed experts who do their homework, and who can make an argument and assist him in crafting the policy that advances the best interest of the united states. that's why he is enormously proud of the people who serve on his team. at the same time he is entirely confident that once he has made a decision that he can count on the members of his team to execute that strategy with excellence. he is confident that every member of his national security team is committed to that goal. >> many times when we've heard you talk about the president's goals on the trail and in the instance of where he's talking

about the election, his goal is to support hillary clinton as the most qualified candidate, but what we've heard a lot of yesterday in his speech was as if he was trying to prove that donald trump is not qualified. would you say that is now a big part of his goal when he is out there? >> i think the president's goal is to ensure that he is succeeded in the oval office by by somebody who is committed to building on the progress that we have made over the past eight years. secretary clinton is the only candidate who has indicated that she is committed to building on that progress. i put her in the category of somebody who obviously doesn't agree with the president on every single policy issue but when it comes to their values and priorities, when it comes to their vision of the country that's rooted in expanding economic opportunities and

equality for all, advancing the u.s. interest around the world, their visions are quite similar. the president has enormous confidence in her ability to lead this country in a direction that will continue to strengthen it and make progress in a direction he has been fighting for. >> sometimes when he would be asked about the election he would decline to weigh-in or he didn't want to go into a lot of detail. especially given what he said yesterday, going into a great deal of detail, what has changed to make him much more willing? >> it's his second campaign event that he has done for secretary clinton. >> every time he's questioned by reporters, question about the

campaign comes up in a question about donald trump comes up almost every single time. he seems much more willing now to go into detail, to attack donald trump, with much more specificity than he did before. is it just the way that the campaigns have a bald? does he feel now is the time to do more of that? i'm just trying to get a sense of what he's thinking. >> it's less than eight weeks before the election and yes he has engaged in that argument. >> does he feel, are we going to hear more from him on that? >> he's been campaigning for hillary clinton, he has a day job that he's very focused on serving as president of the united states and next week he will be devoting the majority of his week to participate in the meeting at the united nations of the general assembly. the had to develop a lot of

times time to traveling overseas but he is going to look for every opportunity he has to go out and campaign for her election for all the reasons he detailed yesterday. >> often when we would ask, he would highlight hillary clinton's qualifications and that's what he wanted to focus on. you even would say he doesn't see the role of trying to win voters away from the republican side necessarily but to motivate the base and highlight hillary clinton's accomplishments. that's what we heard again and again. at this point, does the president feel like focusing on those positive attributes is not enough and now he wants to pinpoint things about the republican campaign that he feels are wrong? >> no i think president chiefly is determined to go and make an affirmative case in support of

sec. clinton's campaign because he feels strongly that she is most qualified and the most effective person in america to succeed him. she has also been the person that was nominated by the democratic party to succeed him. the president will make a passionate case in support of her election and what's also true is there's a choice and a contrast and the president hasn't shied away from pointing out the contrast in their approaches for their experience or their values either. >> we heard from mitch mcconnell that republicans would not take up the nomination the matter how the election turns out. did they make that clear in the meeting the other day? are you willing to concede this is not going to happen. >> i'm not willing to concede that.

it's a serious election strategy that republicans are going to go down to the wire insisting they won't do their job, it's a curious way to make the case that you should be rehired for a job, but i will let them struggle with that challenge. the president continues to insist that he is the right person to serve on the supreme court. he has more experience than any nominee and history, he is somebody who republicans have repeatedly described as a good man and a consensus pick. there's no excuse the republicans have for not doing their job other than they're hoping a republican gets an opportunity to choose the next

person on the supreme court and that is an unprecedented injection of politics into this process. senator graham said the same thing. unprecedented is his word, not mine. that's unfortunate. i think it does risk further erosion in public confidence, but that's a result of republican action. >> this came up in the meeting, but i will let members of congress characterize that. >> he said today he wants secretary clinton but she herself hasn't committed to doing that. do you agree with senator that if garland is confirmed the secretary should stick with him? >> lesson, the president believes that the congress should confirm his nominee to see supreme court and as i

pointed out, i'm not willing to concede that the united states senate will continue to not do their job. at some point, were going to continue to press the issue. if that doesn't happen, then the responsibility will fall to the next president and the president has made quite clear in unambiguous terms why he believes that chief justice garland is the right person for the job and hopefully that will get done before january 20. >> the obama administration's proposal. [inaudible] he proposed creating safe zones in syrian refugees. i know this is something the president has rejected before. was there any internal discussion about revisiting the idea before you put out your

revised number? >> no. >> on firm as president, can you give us more specific timing on the sanctions that are supposed to be lifted? is that all sanctions or do you have any updates on timing? >> i don't have any specifics on timing. there should be an an announcement in the coming days so i will leave it to the treasury department to make the announcement about the change that the president has ordered. >> senator cruise said he wants to attach his proposal to prevent the government from transferring control of the internet domain,.

[inaudible] >> first of all we should point out the ironic position of the small government advocate that the federal government should be in control, this is, the position he has taken is frankly, not supported supported by anybody. obviously the industry technology experts, the business community and the largest internet companies like facebook google and twitter has described it as imperative that the transition move forward. it would be quite unwise for the united states congress to block the transition. we have made clear that the

administration believes the congress should pass the short term. [inaudible] that doesn't include ideological riders. the reason that congress needs to do that is because republicans have failed to fulfill their responsibility to fund the government and they need more time to try to work out budget bills for next year. the president believes they should pass the short term cr, buy them time to do that work and go back after the elections and get it done. the president doesn't believe that that process of extending the time that the congress has to do work should be encumbered by a set of ideological riders.

>> at this point i think it is too early to get into the mode of saying which proposals would drive veto threat from the president of the united states. at this point, i think we will just leave it at it should be free of ideological riders i think there are real questions that could be raised. i don't know if it would pass either the senate or the house given the uniform opposition to what he is advocating. >> lastly, kind of off michelle's question, will they consider. [inaudible] >> i know this is an issue that

came up, but i don't have additional details to share at this point and for what members of congress told the president, i would refer you to their office. >> on hacking, you said there has been no determination in public of who was responsible. >> again decisions about making public any conclusions that have been reached about the investigation, the fbi will decide. >> so is it still under investigation. >> i think my colleagues at the fbi have indicated it continues to be under investigation. any details that are released about the investigation will be released at their discretion based on what they believe enhances our national security interest in what advances the investigation. >> i noticed your joint statement referred to the republic, is that now a new

policy that you refer to burma as mia mar? i think on a previous visit they are used interchangeably. >> any guidance on the timing of the veto of the 911 lawsuit built? >> i don't have it for you in terms of timing but as you no, we received the bill on monday evening and the president does intend to veto it. >> on the hacking thing, is this just the fbi not being able to complete its work or the administration not being able to determine who's behind this because there's a disconnect between what we hear in public from so many professionals and other administration officials but the administration just

can't seem to figure it out. what's the problem here? >> i think the question about the fbi investigation should go to the fbi. >> so that's it, this is a legality. >> what more specifically does the president say about vladimir putin when he said we can't escalate this to an arms race, how pointed were there discussions about hacking specifically in recent months? >> i think you talk about the conversation he had with vladimir putin. president obama acknowledged that he spoke directly on a range of issues including how seriously the united states takes cyber security and, that conversation was direct about

that. i don't have a lot of details to share. >> do you think he left with the impression that the united states firmly believe the russians are behind. >> i didn't ask the spokesperson what impression he was left with after the meeting. >> were in day two of the cease-fire. are there active discussions underway between the russia and the u.s. [inaudible] you would think this has to be carried out quickly and there should be some planning going on. you can't start coordinating airstrikes out of the blue. i'm trying to reconcile the skepticism with the actual need for real solution on the ground.

>> the need for real solution on the ground is one that addresses our most urgent concern which is about the humanitarian situation inside syria. right now the united states is obviously working with our counter iso- coalition to take the fight to iso- and we have enjoyed progress on the ground in iraq and syria in taking background from isil and taking senior iso-leaders off the battlefield, battlefield, the department of defense recently confirmed that the strike succeeded, this was one of the leading iso- figures that was responsible for organizing a lot of their external plots. our top priority overall is protecting the american people and our national security and that means going after urgent threats to our national security like iso- >> is their planning going on

between the russians and the military about how to execute airstrikes in syria. >> there is not. right now the united states in our 66 coalition partners. [inaudible] >> how will this actually begin in four or five days. >> it's important for you to understand the structure of agreement which is that the definition of hostility is something that will be observed by all of the parties including the russians and a side regime for seven days. in that seven days we will see the unimpeded flow of humanitarian assistance to those communities that need it the most including in aleppo. after we have seen that sustained commitment to this arrangement than the united states would begin discussion about military coronation with the russians. not before then.

reason for that is the united states is already making progress in targeting isil and extremist including the al qaeda presence in syria. that has been our top priorities since the first day the president ordered military action inside syria a couple years ago. >> there are no military, humanitarian convoys moving yet. >> we have not seen the kind of unimpeded flow relief that we would like to see at this point. i know they express their concerns about this just yesterday. we haven't seen the kind of movement that we would like to see yet but we are monitoring the situation closely and we continue to call on the russians and the a side regime to live up to the commitments that were made in the context of this arrangement.

>> does the issue of her not becoming president come up in these conversations? >> i know there's discussion about sanctions, whether there's discretion about her eligibility for the presidency in burma, i don't know if that came up in their conversation. >> have you ever seen the doctor our show. >> no i have not seen it. >> did you see it today? >> not today. and not tomorrow either. >> the obama administration is about to give a $40 million military impact to israel which is the largest ever given to any country in american history. why are too talking talking about it here at the white house given what a top relation. [inaudible] have had and what you make of

some of the complaints that it's not enough. >> i've only seen one person make that complaint. i think most people, including the israeli government, including a pack which has not been shy welcome the completion of this agreement. obviously the president made this a priority and identified the completion of a new memorandum of understanding at a security priority three years ago now. this agreement represents the culmination of a lot of work and a series of negotiation, but negotiations that ultimately reflected the shared priorities between the united states and our closest ally in the middle east, israel. it has made the safety and

security of our is really allies a top priority. i think this new memorandum of understanding is an indication that it's a priority president obama also shares. when it comes to the details of the memorandum of understanding, it is my understanding that it's being signed at the state department right now so i will let all of the people involved in that event discuss the details of the memorandum of understanding but i can certainly tell you from here that it reflects the high priority that president obama has placed on the national security of our closest ally in the middle east. >> given that it is the largest aid to any country in the history of america, why is it that happening here, and given what you know has been a very politically heated issue, his support, as you just said has been questioned by republicans and israelis and it's a very

heated issue. it would seem that you would want to. [inaudible] a bit more. is there reason it's being downplayed mark. >> i would contest that this is being downplayed. the president announced the fact that we are going to pursue this memorandum of understanding at a news conference in and israel in front of the israeli prime minister. >> i think what we had made clear all along is that this is a priority. the details are important the details will be just dust by the national security adviser at the state department and they think it's an indication of just how important this policy is in the priority that the president has made the completion of this memorandum of understanding. >> on russia, did any u.s. agency give assistance to the anti-doping agency agency to come to their conclusion about who's responsible for hacking

the information of american athletes? >> as i learned today, the anti-doping agency is is actually located in montréal canada and i know they have indicated that canadian authorities were investigating the cyber intrusion and i would expect that at some point soon u.s. authorities would be in touch with their canadian counterparts about this. i can't. >> guest: any specific conversations that have taken place at this point. >> so you don't question their conclusion that it was a group of russians. >> they very publicly said they were russian hackers that were responsible does the u.s. have any reason to question that conclusion? >> this is based on an investigation conducted by canadian authorities and i would expect that u.s. authorities would be in touch with the canadians about it but i don't have any of our own conclusion

to share. >> when the president was speaking after the political rally he spent a lot of time talking about donald trump and vladimir putin. is there a reason he spent that amount of time doing that that the u.s. is now agreeing to share military intelligence with russia? another not there yet but they're working on that agreement. doesn't he worry that would damage a very fragile agreement? >> no the president is not worried about that. i think the president is saying a lot more about the republican nominee and they do the russian president. [inaudible] >> i think the president's comments speak for themselves. i think he thought that was a

rather illuminating declaration from the republican nominee to compare himself to somebody who republicans or at least the type of leader that republicans have historically expressed deep concerns about. again, the president was at a rally in talking about the campaign for president and spent most his time talking about the democratic nominee he has endorsed but he also spent some time endorsing the concert -- addressing the concerns he had with the republican nominee as well. >> will more questions on the democratic nominee that the president has endorsed. [inaudible] in regard to the president and

hillary clinton, in one of those exchanges for the democratic mega donor, there was a quote that said i don't think she will [inaudible] she will pummel his legacy. [inaudible] >> i know there has been a lot of reporting on this but i think at this point i'm not going to comment on the leaked e-mails, the leaked personal e-mails of a private citizen. i know there's been some coverage on this, i will let newsrooms across the country make their own coverage decisions about what they feel is appropriate for the american public to consider, but i'm not going to have any comments on the contact contents of a

private email of a private citizen. >> is there a higher target for refugees, is there there a new target for syrian refugees? >> my understanding is that the state department, at at this point has not put together a country specific breakdown in terms of the goals they expect to meet next year. the state department has set a goal of admitted 110,000 hundred 10000 refugees to the united states during the next fiscal year and i know there are some regional targets they have set and communicated to congress, but at this point no country specific targets have been set. >> what's the regional target for? >> while it's slightly more complicated than that but i do have a regional breakdown here. it includes the regional target for fy 2017 is 40000, that would be for the.

[inaudible] and asian region. there is an unallocated reserve of about 14000 so there is a little flexibility in this process. i think the thing i will just reiterate is that it's important for people to remember that individuals who had been admitted to the united states under this program have to undergo more rigorous screening and betting than any other individual that enters the united states the president places our national security at the top of his security list. that is certainly true in considering the admission of refugees to the united states. at the same time the president believes the united states has a responsibility as a leader on 70 issues around the world to play an important role in bringing refugees to the united states.

this is something the president expects to discuss at the un next week. he will convene a meeting from leaders around the world to talk about what more countries around the world can do to address the refugee problem that has been so prominent over the last couple of years. >> does he want the u.s. to set an example. >> the president is quite proud of the commitments that he has seen from the united states addressing the situation inside syria, we are the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance of innocent civilians were fleeing violence. in response to the increased commitment, that represents a 57% increase over fiscal year

2015. it has ramped up our commitment in recent years in a way that reflects the responsibility that the united states has lead on these difficult issues. okay. >> nice to see you here. a couple questions on the president's comments in philadelphia yesterday about trump's taxes. is it fair to say that because he brought this up twice in his speech that the president believes is important and valuable for voters to have information on trumps taxes or to see those returns before they go to the polls? >> the president believes there is an important tradition in american politics. for decades, candidates from both parties in greater transparency have released tax returns. i know secretary clinton has done that in the president believes that's important. >> so you probably don't have a

copy of the internal revenue code up there at the podium, but under section 61. >> you probably do thou. >> i do. upon written request of the president, the treasury secretary can furnish to the president a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer and it goes on to say that as long as there is a written direction of the president you are free to release that. with the president feel that this is so important that he would be willing to get those returns from the treasury and make them public if voters really should have this information. >> i've not heard of this potential option, i think it is rather unlikely that the president would order something like that so if there's more on

this with regard to your interpretation of the statute we will consult the lawyers let you know. >> you say it's rather unlikely because that would raise other concerns of the history of the white house releasing tax information under other president. >> i think there are a couple pencils here. certainly one thing that is important and certainly something that's been prioritized is making sure that the work of the irs is not affected with even the appearance of political influence. in this regard, obviously the president has made clear that he is a strong supporter of sec. clinton in the presidential race. i think the second thing is this , no other presidential nominee in either party has ever been compelled to release their tax returns. days of all done so voluntarily. there has been no reason to

resort to obscure sections of the tax code to try to find a reason to force them to be released. candidates for a generation, and both parties, have voluntarily release their released their returns and made them available publicly. the president feels, i think you made the point yesterday that the fact that there's a nominee that won't voluntarily make them public, i think that's something the american people should consider as they evaluate their choices for president of the united states. >> when the president announced about the refugees. [inaudible] hundred and 10000 is not anything close to doubling what the u.s. is doing right now. i'm wondering what's the read

reason. [inaudible] i think the context here is important, it does represent a 57% increase at the united states made just over the last couple of years so i think it does represent a substantial increase in our commitment to addressing the refugee problem around the world. secondly the united states does have a role as the largest donor of humanitarian relief to countries that are caring for syrian refugees. third the united states, when it comes to working through the un refugee program admits more refugees through that program

than the rest of the countries in the world combined admit to that program. that i think is an additional indication of just how committed the united states is to fulfilling our responsibility here. i think what we need to see is a greater commitment around the world to not just should be burdened onto a handful of countries. i think the other reality here is that the president's commitment to ensuring the united states plays a leading role on this issue is not shared by a lot of people in congress including the republican majority and that has an impact in terms of the resources that are dedicated to this effort. the vetting require meant that i was talking earlier are not cheap. so i'm sure the president would

be willing to consider increasing this commitment further if the congress were prepared to provide the rest resources necessary. >> is he conceding that the doubling around the of numbers around the world is not likely to happen? [inaudible] >> i do think we can ask countries around the world to scale up their commitments in the same way the united states has. >> can you talk about the timing of at least the president pledge [inaudible]

>> i think at this point the decision has been made and this is a decision that she indicated she agreed with and she supported the decision and now it's just a matter of making the regulatory changes necessary to put those changes into effect. that will take some time but as the president indicated, it is something that should be completed in the coming day. >> why why now, why make the decision to do it now? i know you said you can't wait forever but when does it happen to be? [inaudible] what has changed? >> think the reason this national emergency was placed into effect in the first place was concern about the

undemocratic conduct of the military government that previously ruled burma. much of the concern in the united states was rooted in the way that that military government was treating her. she was in prison in her own home. that's an important reason why it was put in place. now we have seen significant reform inside burma. no longer is she a prisoner in her own house, she she's now the head of the government. i think that does reflect important progress inside burma and given that progress i think it makes sense that the national emergency would be with drawn and the sanctions lifted. that said, we continue to want to encourage the pursuit of additional democratic reform as many have noted, but there still

is an undue role that the military plays in the government therefore 25% that's that's an indication that there are more reforms we would like to see them do and there's more work we would like to see when it comes to protecting the human rights. she has made clear that the priority of her government and she made clear to the united states president and in public when she spoke to reporters sitting next to the president of the united states. at this point, we want to continue to encourage those reforms. i think the last thing is, and i think this is an indication of the influence the u.s. has around the world,.

[inaudible] other countries, other companies around the world have been reluctant to do business in burma because they know what the presence of certain u.s. sanctions, even if the business they conduct with and complies with u.s. sanctions, the fact that those sanctions exist have a chilling effect on the economy and president obama is convinced and recent history strongly suggests that greater economic ties between burma and the united states will only serve to further intensify additional reforms. that is the case that we have made. that is the case that is most directly rooted. [inaudible] in seven years in supporting in

addressing the changes that have taken place in burma to the benefit of the burmese people and in a way that advances united states interest in the region. this was essentially a closed government that just did business with china. now this is a much more open government that does a better job of prior prioritizing democratic principles and has improved its pursuit of human rights and is interested in engaging with the united states of america and not something that benefits the people not just economically but strategically we were talking about our interests. >> is that something he wanted to get done before he left office? >> i think he was quite interested in making as much progress as we can to support

the burmese people and the burmese government in pursuing democratic reforms. >> it was driven by the progress they made. [inaudible] >> thank you, i wanted to circle back just a little bit on the agreements of the seven-day reduction of violence and the increase humanitarian aid delivery. i want to drill down just a bit on language because previously we heard the expression for a reduction in hostility but this called for a reduction in violence and why is theirs softer language. >> i don't forget softer, i think it was an effort to try to describe the situation inside syria as clearly as we can. primarily because, either there

is hostility among the parties involved in the agreement, this is the asad regime, the united states, russia and opposition groups that have ties to the united states, it does not in any way apply to isil or other extremist, they will continue to take airstrikes they are going to continue to seek to make progress on the ground against isil. they are not affected by the hostilities. [inaudible] >> that's largely the difference, yes. >> would you acknowledge that there has been a rift between the department and the navy state because of some of the differences in language, meaning meaning there are those at the pentagon that feel that it has

been moved just a bit by this agreement. >> no, it's primarily because i'm not going to talk about a private conversation of the president and his national security team. as i mentioned, the president has indicated that on every issue that we deal with, he wants his advisors to engage in a debate about the bath best path forward. he wants to hear the point of view of every member of his team and make sure those individuals expressing a point of view are doing so based on their homework and knowledge of the situation and based on a forceful argument about what path should be pursued. the president has found that that kind of debate among his

advisors leads to better decisions. it enhances his ability as the commander-in-chief to make good decisions. the president welcomes a vigorous discussion with his national security team but the president also expects once he has made a decision his team will move out on that decision and execute a strategy he has laid out with excellence. he is confident that will happen in this case too. there is a big if involved. before any russia military operation is initiated, we need to see reduction in violence on the ground in syria and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands, if not not millions of syrians that desperately needed. >> let me ask about edward snowden. it has become pretty clear that whistleblowers doesn't serve the interest of the u.s. rather it harms them and i wonder if you would acknowledge if there's any

validity to that argument and if it. [inaudible] should reconsider? >> i don't think it makes sense. >> there actually is a specific process that is well established and well protected that allows whistleblowers to raise concerns that they have, particularly when it relates to confidential information, to do so in a way that protects the national security secrets of the united states. that is not what snowden did. his conduct put american lives at risk and at risk american national security and that's why, since the policy of the obama administration is that he should return to the united states and fix the various

serious charges that he is facing. he will of course be afforded the rights that every american citizen, but we believe he should return to the united states and face those charges. >> do he or any of his representatives reach out? i'm not aware of any medications between mr. snowden and the president. >> and lastly, i weakly ask, where are we and is there any pending announcement for movement of. [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of any changes since the last time you ask, we can confirm those numbers for you but i don't have the numbers in front of me. the president and his team are continuing to do the important diplomatic work that is necessary to find suitable arrangements for those individuals that have been cleared for transfer and that means finding other countries

that will cooperate to impose required security restrictions to mitigate any risks those individuals would pose to the united states. that diplomatic work continues, i don't have any transfers to preview for you but i don't we've made any announcements since we last discussed. [inaudible] >> us if i can get some additional details at the meeting, i know we enjoyed the opportunity he had to sit down with the prime minister, the two leaders have cooperated extensively on shared priorities particularly with regard to the climate agreement that was reached last year, the president is engaged in an effort to

encourage other countries around the world to join that agreement before the end of this year and certainly the prime minister is aware of the significance of this international agreement and i know he is supportive of the contents of the agreement because of the positive impact it would have on the future of his nation. typically when they sit down, they don't just talk about climate but they talk about the other extensive ties between the united states and india, with regard to the economy and with regard to national security. i know both of those discussions discussions -- items were part of the discussion. [inaudible] >> i think that is indicative of

the important and valuable and productive working relationship that he has established with the prime minister. the president certainly enjoyed the opportunity to visit india a year and a half ago and he was honored to be the official guest and the united states and india have worked together on a number of shared priorities. there is a lot of skepticism internationally about whether or not the paris climate agreement would be reached if india wasn't prepared to engage constructively in pursuit of a solution. to his credit, that's exactly what the prime minister dead. he did that with president obama and other world leaders but i think it's a testament to the

fact that the world's two largest democracy, when we cooperate, we cooperate, we can do it incredibly important thing he is part of a legacy of the u.s. india relationship that has been established. [inaudible] >> i miss the end of your question. [inaudible] >> well i know there was a statement shortly after the most recent nuclear testing korea indicating they were supportive of additional steps by the international community to apply pressure to the north koreans.

obviously, the united states is committed to working with our allies and partners in northeast asia. to address the situation and our commitment to deep nuclear eyes korea and stabilize the situation. it is one that is shared, not not just with our allies in japan and south korea but the chinese and you can certainly anticipate additional engagement between the u.s. and china as we consider an appropriate international response. >> north korea has said they will conduct additional nuclear test anytime soon. is there any tension with china and the united states.

[inaudible] >> i've seen mutual reports indicating the kind of assessment you just relayed. day can tell you the u.s. and china consult closely about the situation in north korea, we have a shared goal and the u.s. continues to keep an open line of communication with our allies in japan and south korea. you probably noted that shortly after the test was conducted, the president was on the phone with the prime minister's to talk about the situation. he had an indication of how seriously the president takes the u.s. commitment to the safety and security of our allies in the asian pacific.

[inaudible] >> we strongly believe it's important for the north korean regime to abide by their international agreements and un resolution. there repeated testing of ballistic missiles and nuclear test are violations of the international obligation and security resolutions. international community is united in insisting they should not engage in this kind of provocation. [inaudible] >> considering this has happened before i guess it's not a one-time showcase.

>> last one. >> i am sure you are aware. [inaudible] the impeachment of the irs commissioner. [inaudible] your reaction to that? >> i think it's an indication they are focused on entirely the wrong priorities. the people of kansas have spoken on this as i recall he lost his administration primary. i think he is focusing on the kind of behavior that got him voted out of office. with regard to congressman fleming, you would think after his date sustain flooding damage his priorities might be focused on not your political gains but trying to represent the people of louisiana particularly after they have gone such a crisis.

perley he is interested in different things and the people of louisiana will also have an opportunity to weigh-in on that in a couple of months he met. [inaudible] >> the congressman from texas said that in wanting to admit 110,000 refugees he's also disregarding the advice of his security experts who believed that the terrorism in the united states and incidents that would be very bad, is that accurate at all? :